Closed drbenvincent closed 1 week ago
Check out this pull request on
See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.
Powered by ReviewNB
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 80.87%. Comparing base (
4af4af6
) to head (9fc0798
).
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB
juanitorduz commented on 2024-06-19T08:00:38Z ----------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers look in different columns. Why don't er print a dataframe?
Some tables based on print
statements look out of phase. What if we use something like in the pyfixest
package https://py-econometrics.github.io/pyfixest/quickstart.html ?
Some tables based on
Very good point @juanitorduz . For the moment I've kept the same basic approach, but have improved the formatting. The function that prints the model coefficients now evaluates the length of the longest coefficient label so that it can align the coefficient values appropriately.
I'm very open to rethinking the nature of the summary outputs, but I'm tempted to deal with that in a separate issue. For example, there is already https://github.com/pymc-labs/CausalPy/issues/174 as one option.
I'll do a similar formatting improvement for the pymc experiments in a different issue now.
What do you think?
PS. I just noticed I probably have to update the doctests 🤣 Will do that now :)
summary
method on all the existing frequentist experimentsresult.summary()
functionalitysummary
method just to get code coverage to pass. But note that #305 exists to do better testing on this front